coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Hirtenberg.
5.  The applicant was arrested on 11 October 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was in pre-trial detention until 18 October 2001.
6.  In the course of the preliminary investigations, the investigating judge requested the Economic Crime Department (Wirtschaftspolizei) of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion) to carry out certain investigations.
7.  On 14 October and 21 November 2001 the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge. Further questioning scheduled for 18 December 2001 and 14 January 2002 was cancelled as the applicant informed the investigating judge that he was sick. The applicant was questioned again on 5 March 2002.
8.  During the summer of 2002 further interrogations of the applicant took place through the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office.
9.  On 22 January 2003 the Public Prosecutor requested the investigating judge to close the investigations.
10.  It appears that the investigating judge chose to continue the investigations. The applicant was questioned again on 15 December 2003 and in March 2004 several witnesses were questioned, following which the public prosecutor repeatedly urged the investigating judge to obtain the investigation results from the Economic Crimes Department of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate and to conclude the preliminary investigations.
11.  On 29 June 2005 the investigating judge decided nevertheless to obtain an expert opinion on various transactions in respect of which the applicant was suspected of embezzlement. The expert’s opinion was submitted on 14 November 2005 and transmitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the applicant on 6 February 2006.
12.  On 15 March 2006 the Vienna Public Prosecutor issued the bill of indictment charging the applicant with embezzlement.
13.  The applicant lodged objections against the indictment on 12 April 2006. By decision of 11 May 2006 the Court of Appeal rejected the objections and upheld the indictment.
14.  The trial was scheduled to commence on 10 August 2006. As the applicant was in hospital, the trial had to be postponed.
15.  The Vienna Regional Criminal Court, sitting with two professional and two lay judges, then held the first hearing on 2 November 2006. During this hearing the expert was ordered to supplement his opinion, taking into consideration further documents. The applicant’s son transmitted further documents to the expert on 14 February 2007.
16.  The court held another hearing on 26 April 2007. On that date it acquitted the applicant. The judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 28 June 2007.
4.  The six applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex.
5.  The applicants are co-owners of a plot of land in the Volos district. On 26 August 1986 a compulsory expropriation was declared on their property according to presidential decree no. 719/1986. Subsequently, on 1st August 2002, the applicants filed an application with the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works asking for the revocation of the blocking of their property as the expropriation procedure had not been completed and no compensation had been awarded to them.
6.  On 18 November 2002 the applicants lodged a recourse against the Greek authorities with the Volos First Instance Administrative Court challenging the implicit refusal of the authorities to revoke the expropriation of their property.
7. On 7 July 2005 a preliminary decision was published asking the authorities to submit additional evidence within twenty days (decision no. 241/2005). On 13 July 2006 the applicants filed an application before the Volos First Instance Administrative Court asking for a hearing date to be set as soon as possible.
8.  The hearing took place on 5 March 2009.
9.  By judgment dated 25 June 2009 the Volos First Instance Administrative Court accepted the applicants’ recourse (judgment no. 144/2009).
10.  On 22 January 2010 the Government lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court challenging the abovementioned decision (appeal no. 1099/10). It transpires from the case file that these proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicants’ personal details are listed in Annex I to this judgment.
5.  The applicants were serviceman employed by the Ministry of Defence (Ministarstvo obrane Republike Hrvatske). In 1996, 1997 and 1998 the applicants occasionally participated in demining operations in the newly liberated territories in Croatia.
6.  On the basis of the Decision of the Minister of Defence of 18 September 1995 (see “Relevant domestic law”, below), they were entitled to a special daily allowance for such work.
7.  Since the allowances had not been paid to them, on 21 May 2002 each applicant brought a separate civil action against the State in the Knin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kninu), seeking payment of the unpaid allowances.
8.  The State responded that their actions were time-barred because the three-year limitation period for employment-related claims had expired.
9.  In reply, the applicants argued that on several occasions they had asked their commanding officer why the allowances had not been paid. Their commanding officer had made enquiries of his superior, who had then contacted the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces (Glavni stožer Oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske). Eventually, the applicants had been informed through their commanding officer that their claims were not being disputed and that they would be paid once the funds for that purpose had been allocated in the State budget. Relying on that information, the applicants argued that the State had acknowledged the debt and that the running of the statutory limitation period had thus been interrupted.
10.  On 12 and 14 December 2005 the Knin Municipal Court ruled in favour of the State and dismissed the applicants’ actions. It held that in accordance with the internal regulations of the Ministry of Defence the only person authorised to acknowledge the debt on behalf of the Ministry before the applicants had brought their actions had been the head of its Central Finance Department and his superiors. Therefore, the repeated declarations of the applicants’ commanding officer to the applicants, after making enquiries of his superiors up to the level of the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces, that their claims were not in dispute and that the allowances would be paid once funds had been allocated in the budget for that purpose, had not constituted acknowledgement of the debt capable of interrupting the running of the statutory limitation period.
11.  On 3 and 10 April 2006 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the first-instance judgments endorsing the reasons given therein.
12.  The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaints were dismissed by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) in the period between 18 September 2006 and 10 April 2008. The Constitutional Court’s decisions were served on the applicants’ representative on the dates indicated in Annex I to this judgment.
6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in London.
7.  In June 1986 he started an intimate relationship with S.D. who was at the time married to another man but separated from him. S.D. gave birth to two children on 26 August 1987 and 25 November 1995 respectively. The applicant voluntarily recognised the second child in France where it was born.
8.  S.D. got divorced in 1998. The applicant’s relationship with her also ended in March of the same year. The applicant maintained regular communication with the two children until 2000, when the contact with them became irregular due to the opposition on the part of S.D.
9.  On 11 October 2000 the applicant lodged an interim application asking for visiting rights as regards the two children before the Family Court of First Instance of Athens. His request was accepted on 15 February 2001 (judgment no. 1586/2001).
10.  On 11 October 2001 S.D. lodged an interim application with the Family Court of First Instance of Athens asking to have the applicant’s visiting rights withdrawn. This request was rejected on 29 April 2002 (judgment no. 3369/2002).
11.  On 11 June 2002 S.D. lodged another interim application with the Family Court of First Instance of Athens asking to have the applicant’s visiting rights withdrawn. On 12 August 2002 her application was accepted (judgment no. 6306/2002). The court decided that the applicant was not the lawful father of the children, as S.D. was still married to another man when the children were born, and therefore, according to Article 1465 of the Civil Code, it was presumed that her husband was the father of the children. Further, it was observed that the applicant had never challenged the paternity of the children before the domestic courts in the form of an action challenging paternity pursuant to Article 1469 § 5 of the Civil Code.
12.  In the meantime, on 9 March 2001 the applicant had lodged an application for the regulation of visiting rights with the children before the Athens Family Court of First Instance. His application was rejected on 11 November 2002. The court noted that S.D. was still married to another man when the children were born and therefore, according to Article 1465 of the Civil Code, it was presumed that their father was their mother’s husband (judgment no. 1605/2002).
13.  On 15 December 2002 the applicant filed an appeal with the Athens Family Court of Appeal challenging the First Instance Court’s decision. In the meantime the eldest child became an adult and the subject matter regarding this child ceased to exist. Thus, the proceedings continued only with regard to the second child. By judgment dated 12 April 2006, the court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the First Instance Court (judgment no. 2601/2006).
14.  On 21 September 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. On 19 March 2009, after the case had been referred to the plenary session of the court, the appeal was finally rejected (judgment no. 9/2009). The date on which judgment no. 9/2009 was “finalised” (θεώρηση και καθαρoγραφή) does not transpire from the case file.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972.
5.  On 16 January 2006 the police arrested him on suspicion of several drug-related crimes.
6.  On 19 January 2006 the Kostyantynivka Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand pursuant to Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) on the grounds of gravity of charges and that, if the applicant remained at liberty, he might abscond and obstruct justice. It rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request for the applicant’s release under bail having stated that there were no grounds for choosing that preventive measure, without any further details.
7.  On 17 March 2006, following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, the case was referred to the same court for trial.
8.  On 5 April 2006 during the preliminary hearing the court ordered that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.
9.  On 12 October 2006 it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.
10.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the above judgment requesting, inter alia, the applicant’s release.
11.  On 23 February 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal instructed the local prosecutor to carry out some further investigatory actions in the case. It also ruled that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.
12.  Following the completion of the investigatory actions, the case was sent back to the Court of Appeal, which on 6 July 2007 quashed the judgment of 12 October 2006 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It stated that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.
13.  On 3 October 2007 the Kostyantynivka Court examined the applicant’s and two other co-defendants’ requests for the release and rejected them on the ground of the gravity of charges.
14.  On 27 March 2008 the same court convicted the applicant of two counts (repeated production, purchase, storage and sale of narcotics and precursors by a group of persons) and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.
15.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed against the above judgment requesting, inter alia, the applicant’s release.
16.  On 22 August 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It stated that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.
17.  On 21 August 2009 the Kostyantynivka Court convicted the applicant of the same counts as in its judgment of 27 March 2008 and sentenced him to five years’ and eight months’ imprisonment with confiscation of property. The applicant did not appeal.
18.  In the course of the proceedings apart from the applicant two other co-defendants and thirty four witnesses were interrogated and heard. Five hearings were adjourned due to the defendants’ lawyers’ failure to appear. Twenty one hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses’ and victims’ failure to appear, in respect of which the courts applied compulsory summonses.
3.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1960, 1962 and 1934 respectively and live in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 22 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2802).
6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.
8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 126,725, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6192).
9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 23 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,821 and 187,447 respectively to the files before the Bursa Execution Office.
11.  According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 27 May 1992 the applicant was interrogated on suspicion of fraud by the Budapest Police Department. On 30 June 1992 the Ministry of the Interior’s Passport Office withdrew his passport until the termination of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to sections 2 and 13 of Act no. XXVIII of 1989 on Travelling Abroad. On 17 December 1992 the Budapest Police Department prohibited the alienation of a car and a house, registered as property of the applicant. The aim of this measure was to secure the eventual recovery of the gain from the applicant’s alleged crime.
7.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not filed a complaint against the prohibition or filed a motion with the trial court to have the measure discontinued. However, it can be verified from the case file that he did so on 9 January 1993 and again on 3 March 1993.
8.  On 19 July 1994 the Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with fraud and forgery of private documents.
9.  After several hearings, on 9 January 2002 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant. On appeal, on 12 November 2002 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 7 September 2005 the Pest Central District Court again acquitted the applicant. The prosecution appealed.
11.  On 1 July 2006 the travel ban imposed on the applicant was lifted due to a change in the law.
12.  On 29 September 2006 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment acquitting the applicant, and ordered that the measure to freeze his assets be discontinued. This decision was served on the applicant on 22 November 2006.
3.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1966 respectively and live in Bursa.
4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.
5.  On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2200).
6.  On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.
8.  On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 100,723.25, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2817).
9.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.
10.  On 16 January 2009 the administration paid TRY 9,414.62 to file no. 2006/2200 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt arising from the initial action.
11.  Subsequently, on 24 March 2009 they paid TRY 152,951.97 to file no. 2009/2817 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt under the additional action. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Śmiłowo. He was a member of the Senate (the upper chamber of the Parliament) between 1989 and 2005 and a prosperous businessman.
7.  On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. It appears that he left Poland in December 2006. On 30 January 2007 the Warsaw-Praga Północ District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody. That decision was upheld on appeal.
8.  On 23 July 2007 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court issued a European Arrest Warrant for the applicant. On 12 November 2007 he was arrested in Germany on the basis of that warrant. On 19 December 2007 the applicant was extradited to Poland.
9.  Subsequently the Warsaw-Praga Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with, inter alia, numerous counts of bribery of high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Finance and bribery of a judge of the administrative court. The applicant was represented by three defence counsel.
10.  On 21 December 2007, on an application from the Warsaw-Praga Regional Prosecutor, the assessor R.Z. (junior judge) of the Warsaw‑Praga Północ District Court remanded the applicant in custody until 19 March 2008.
11.  Two of the applicant’s counsel (Mr J. Majewski and Mr M. Boruc) lodged appeals against the detention order on 28 December 2007. Counsel J. Majewski argued, invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that the detention order had been given by an assessor who could not be considered “a judge” or “other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” because he lacked independence from the executive. Relying on Article 439 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) he submitted that the detention order had been given by a “non-authorised person” (osoba nieuprawniona). In this respect he referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 October 2007.
12.  On 11 January 2008 the applicant’s third counsel (Mr J. Naumann) filed an appeal against the detention order.
13.  On 12 February 2008 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, sitting as a bench of three professional judges, dismissed the appeals against the detention order of 21 December 2007. It held that the assessor could not be considered as “a non-authorised person to give a decision” within the meaning of Article 439 § 1 (1) of the CCP. The Constitutional Court had struck down the provisions allowing the Minister of Justice to delegate judicial powers to assessors; however the relevant decisions given by assessors had not been automatically negated. The court observed that following Poland’s accession to the European Union domestic law was undergoing a continuous process of adjustment to the requirements of European law. However, the transformation of domestic law should not lead to chaos in the legal order and for that reason the Constitutional Court had allowed 18 months for the necessary legislative changes to be implemented. The court observed that at the relevant time the applicant could only challenge an alleged lack of impartiality on the part of the assessor under Article 41 § 1 of the CCP.
5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Dolný Kubín.
6.  On 5 February 2004 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery[1] and remanded in custody from that date.
7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005.
8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several other persons before the Žilina Regional Court.
9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.
10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody.
11.  On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention in the period after 24 January 2005 was unlawful.
12.  On 5 February 2006 the applicant was released.
13.  On 15 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 24 May 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (judgment I.ÚS 204/05). There had been no judicial decision extending the applicant’s detention after 24 January 2005 and there existed no justification for that situation.
14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress for the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.